THIS
CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's appeal
of an administrative decision denying her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Following
an administrative hearing held on August 23, 2017, the
assigned Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued
a decision on November 15, 2017, finding Plaintiff not
disabled since June 4, 2015, the alleged amended disability
onset date. (Tr. 9-61.)

In
reaching his decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's
aortic valve disease and epilepsy seizure disorder were
severe impairments; that Plaintiff did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled
the severity of one of the listed impairments; and that
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work with limitations.
(Tr. 17-19.) Then, after determining that Plaintiff had no
past relevant work, the ALJ concluded that there were jobs,
existing in significant numbers in the national economy, that
Plaintiff was able to perform. (Tr. 25.) Based on a review of
the record, the briefs, and the applicable law, the
Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

I.
Standard of Review

The
scope of this Court's review is limited to determining
whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards,
McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.
1988), and whether the Commissioner's findings are
supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). “Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). Where
the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the
reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of
fact, and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner's decision.
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th
Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358
(11th Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence
as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as
unfavorable to the decision. Foote v. Chater, 67
F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); accord Lowery v.
Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating
the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the
reasonableness of the Commissioner's factual findings).

II.
Discussion

Plaintiff
raises two issues on appeal. First, she argues that the ALJ
failed to make a specific finding at step two of the
sequential evaluation process[2] about the severity of her chest
pain, extremity numbness, dizziness, headaches, and
medication side effects, and failed to account for these
impairments/symptoms and any resulting limitations in the RFC
assessment. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to
properly apply the pain standard.

In the
Eleventh Circuit, “[t]he finding of any severe
impairment . . . is enough to satisfy step two because once
the ALJ proceeds beyond step two, he is required to consider
the claimant's entire medical condition, including
impairments the ALJ determined were not severe.”
Burgin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 420 Fed.Appx.
901, 902 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2011). Therefore, even if the
ALJ erred by not finding Plaintiff's chest pain,
extremity numbness, dizziness, headaches, and/or medication
side effects to be severe impairments, the error is harmless
because the ALJ found at least one severe impairment. See
Heatly v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 382 Fed.Appx. 823,
824-25 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Even if the ALJ
erred in not indicating whether chronic pain syndrome was a
severe impairment, the error was harmless because the ALJ
concluded that [plaintiff] had a severe impairment: [sic] and
that finding is all that step two requires. . . . Nothing
requires that the ALJ must identify, at step two, all of the
impairments that should be considered severe.”).

At step
two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's aortic valve disease
and epilepsy seizure disorder were severe impairments.
Although Plaintiff's chest pain, extremity numbness,
headaches, dizziness, or other medication side effects were
not listed among the severe impairments, the ALJ did not
ignore these impairments/symptoms. For example, in
determining the RFC, the ALJ noted Plaintiff's testimony
that she experienced chest pain without cause and headaches
almost every day; numbness, tingling, and cramps in her hands
and legs; and dizziness as a side effect of her medications.
(Tr. 19-20.) The ALJ also noted that:

The evidence of record does not show symptoms or limitations
from the claimant's impairments that would preclude work
activity within the [RFC] assessment. For example, . . .
treatment notes since the claimant's application date
show complaints, such as headaches, palpitations, and chest
pain, and physical examination findings of murmurs at times,
bilateral lower extremity dysesthesias, greater on the right,
below the knees, at times, and slight diminished sensibility
along the entire right side of the claimant's body on
July 24, 2017. Electrodiagnostic testing showed slowing of
the motor conduction velocity across the fibular head on the
peroneal nerves, bilaterally, compatible with the presence of
a bilateral peroneal nerve palsy at the fibular head (Exhibit
15F). However, most physical examination findings since the
claimant's application date are unremarkable and do not
support limitations greater than those detailed in the [RFC].
Furthermore, the medical evidence of record does not show
seizure activity that would preclude work activity within the
[RFC].[3]

(Tr. 20.)[4] The ALJ then determined that the RFC
assessment was “supported by the medical evidence of
record, including the claimant's symptoms of chest pain
consistent with [the] objective medical evidence of record,
including physical examination findings . . ., lack of
evidence of seizures after April of 2015, and treatment notes
of Dr. Pizarro-Otero showing bilateral lower extremity
dysesthesias, greater on the right, below the knees, but
otherwise unremarkable examination findings, including 5/5
strength, a normal gait, no ataxia, no unsteadiness, no use
of an assistive device, normal reflexes, and intact fine
motor movement.” (Tr. 25.)

As
shown by the ALJ's decision, he adequately considered all
of Plaintiff's impairments, both severe and non-severe,
in combination. See Tuggerson-Brown v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 13-14168, 572 Fed.Appx. 949, 951-52 (11th Cir.
July 24, 2014) (per curiam) (“[T]he ALJ stated that he
evaluated whether [plaintiff] had an ‘impairment or
combination of impairments' that met a listing and that
he considered ‘all symptoms' in determining her
RFC. Under our precedent, those statements are enough to
demonstrate that the ALJ considered all necessary
evidence.”).

Moreover,
the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence.
(See, e.g., Tr. 380-81 (noting “[n]o acute
cardiac or pulmonary process” according to a chest
X-ray from March 19, 2015, despite complaints of intermittent
palpitations and fatigue[5]); Tr. 447 (noting “[n]o
hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis” on March
21, 2015); Tr. 615 (noting chest tightness that resolved on
its own as of March 22, 2015); Tr. 523 (noting no acute
cardiopulmonary process according to a chest X-ray from March
24, 2015); Tr. 411 (noting that a March 25, 2015 EEG did not
support a diagnosis of seizures[6]); Tr. 446 (noting a negative head
CT scan from March 25, 2015); Tr. 494 (noting no acute
intracranial abnormality according to CT scans of the head
from March 25 and March 27, 2015); Tr. 493 (noting, on March
31, 2015, that Plaintiff's encephalopathy had resolved
and no seizure activity was shown on the EEG); Tr. 667 &
807 (noting no acute intracranial abnormality according to a
CT scan and an MRI of the head from April 16,
2015[7]); Tr. 842-45 (noting a murmur and chronic
joint pain, but otherwise unremarkable examination on April
21, 2015); Tr. 369-70 (noting a normal examination, except
“light touch BLE dysesthesias R>L below the knees,
” on May 6, 2015, despite complaints of headache and
paresthesia); Tr. 644-46 (noting dizziness, intermittent
chest pain, and fatigue, but otherwise stable examination on
May 8, 2015); Tr. 838-41 (noting right-sided chest tenderness
and murmur but otherwise unremarkable examination on June 1,
2015); Tr. 641-43 (noting occasional chest pain and
right-sided chest discomfort, stable palpitations, headache,
and dizziness as of June 3, 2015); Tr. 663 (noting no acute
cardiopulmonary process as of June 8, 2015); Tr. 1261 (noting
that a brain MRI from June 22, 2015 showed no evidence of
acute infarct or intracranial mass); Tr. 751-53 (noting
complaints of headache and paresthesia, but mostly
unremarkable examination as of June 24, 2015); Tr. 638-40
(noting unremarkable examination despite dizziness and
occasional palpitations as of July 1, 2015); Tr. 834-37
(noting lightheadedness and a murmur, but otherwise
unremarkable examination on July 27, 2015); Tr. 763-65
(noting a normal examination on August 19, 2015, despite
intermittent right-sided chest pains); Tr. 993-94 (noting a
normal electromyographic study of both lower extremities, but
an abnormal nerve conduction study, on September 25, 2015);
Tr. 1076-80 (noting intermittent chest pain and palpitations,
but mostly unremarkable examination on October 14, 2015); Tr.
966 & 974-77 (noting that Plaintiff was admitted on
December 2, 2015 for generalized chest pain after lifting
boxes, but the pain was musculoskeletal and improved without
intervention; a CT scan of the head and neck showed no
evidence of filling defect, vascular malformation, or
aneurysm, and no acute intracranial findings; an X-ray showed
no acute pulmonary disease; a CT scan of the chest showed
aortic dissection protocol negative for acute findings; an
MRI of the brain showed, inter alia, no evidence of
acute ischemia); Tr. 1081-85 (noting a normal examination on
February 17, 2016); Tr. 989 (noting, on February 26, 2016
that: “[Plaintiff] stopped the Amitriptyline since she
states she is not needing it. She has been seizure free. She
continues with headache 8 days per month and she did not take
the Topiramate since it [caused] drowsiness. . . . The
headaches resolve[d] with [D]ipyrone from Cuba.”); Tr.
1054-59 (noting a murmur, but otherwise unremarkable
examination on April 7, 2016); Tr. 1050-53 (noting no
symptoms and a normal examination on June 2, 2016); Tr.
1086-91 (noting precordial non-cardiac pain and palpitations,
but a normal ECG on June 7, 2016); Tr. 1193-96 (noting no
active complaints and a normal examination on November 1,
2016); Tr. 1185-88 (noting complaints of cramps on both arms
and legs and occasional chest pain, but otherwise
unremarkable examination on March 3, 2017); Tr. 1180-83
(noting occasional dizziness and a murmur, but otherwise
unremarkable examination on March 31, 2017); Tr. 1176-79
(noting complaints of fatigue and headache, but mostly normal
examination on May 16, 2017); Tr. 1243-44 (noting slight
diminished sensibility along the right side of
Plaintiff's body, but otherwise normal examination on
July 24, 2017); Tr. 80 (noting “[n]o hemodynamically
significant stenosis in the carotid or vertebral
arteries” as of August 15, 2017); Tr. 79 (noting that
the brain MRI of October 30, 2017 appeared stable compared to
the scan from 2015); Tr. 64 (noting a November 9, 2017
unremarkable examination despite reports of weakness and
dizziness); Tr. 71 (noting, on December 20, 2017, that
Plaintiff's intermittent chest pain was musculoskeletal
and should be referred to pain management).)

As
reflected in the ALJ's decision, he considered
Plaintiff's impairments and incorporated into the RFC
assessment only those limitations resulting from the
impairments, which he found to be supported by the record.
Therefore, Plaintiff's argument that the RFC assessment
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.